Legal Opinion
Comvest Consulting, Inc. v. W.R.S.B. Development Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided November 12, 1999No. Appeal No. 1PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of defendant’s liability for brokerage commissions. Plaintiffs submissions established a prima facie entitlement to the brokerage fees. Defendant’s contention that plaintiff is not entitled to the commissions because no brokerage commission agreement exists is without merit. “In the absence of a contract, express or implied, a broker is entitled to receive a commission in a reasonable amount for bringing together the parties to a transaction” (Curtis Props.…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Alvarez v. Prospect HospitalNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
- Nassau Trust Co. v. Montrose Concrete Products Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1982
- George Backer Management Corp. v. Acme Quilting Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1978
- Curtis Properties Corp. v. Greif Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
- Peck v. PeckAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Makarchuk v. MakarchukAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Comvest Consulting, Inc. v. W.R.S.B. Development Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
- Rochester City School District v. County of MonroeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
- Thomas J. Hayes & Associates, LLC v. BrodskyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Thomas J. Hayes & Associates, LLC v. BrodskyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012